insert_username_here
Member
I dont even know how the fuck that happened.
Well cause contrary to most major publishers belief's, generic shooters don't actually equal money.
I dont even know how the fuck that happened.
I dont even know how the fuck that happened.
I dont even know how the fuck that happened.
Damn, Syndicate deserved better.
Dat Skyrim affect perhaps helped boost Reckoning sales? At least Reckoning is something different than being another shooter. FPS games are a dime a dozen nowadays, regardless of quality.
I totally forgot that Reckoning was a EA partners game. That makes this situation even sadder.Syndicate is a true EA game though. They own the property but it was just being handled by an outside developer. Funny thing is Reckoning outsold Syndicate by a lot and that was an EA partners game with 0 advertising.
Are you combining platforms and Limited Editions?
Word of mouth seemed to be really good with that game but that's obviously not a measurable effect. Other than that I have no idea either.
No Revelations?!
No Revelations?!
It's really interesting that Skyrim 360 basically outsold FF13-2 360 for the month.
Cool, didn't realize Schilling started post here as well. Thanks for pointing it out.Curt Schilling posted on GAF saying that the reception to the demo was quite strong and provided very good (and free) promotion.
In the top 25 according to joystiq.
Most games from EA partner program have bombed, Crysis 2 being the exception. I'm worried about Insomnia's Overstrike.
Well cause contrary to most major publishers belief's, generic shooters don't actually equal money.
Doesn't make sense to me. FFXIII sold more than XII. By your logic, should imply XII strengthened the brand.
Claiming that FFXIII damaged the brand because the next Final Fantasy game sold less copies, while also claiming that FFXII "of course" damaged the brand even though the Final Fantasy game that came after it sold more copies, is a clear case of cognitive dissonance.
The whole EA Parner's program is weird to me. So EA publishes the game, but doesn't own the rights to it. How does it help EA if it becomes successful? What stops a game from being made by a developer and published by EA, and then the dev getting a different publisher for a sequel, effectively getting EA to market a game that they may never see another dollar from?
I think the more important question is, why doesn't EA do any marketing for their EA Partner games? This is what's scaring us fans of the developers under that program. Do you need to sell your rights to get some marketing?
I think the more important question is, why doesn't EA do any marketing for their EA Partner games? This is what's scaring us fans of the developers under that program. Do you need to sell your rights to get some marketing?
FFXII sold more to consumers than XIII.
So over the next five weeks, they'll at least double, maybe triple those numbers you think?LOL, what the heck is the point of those Azura's Wrath and Syndicate numbers? They each only had four days...
LOL, what the heck is the point of those Azura's Wrath and Syndicate numbers? They each only had four days...
LOL, what the heck is the point of those Azura's Wrath and Syndicate numbers? They each only had four days...
GTA3, off the top of my head. It didn't go critical mass until a few months down the line.Look. This excuse gets trotted out everything single month for dozens upon dozens of games (and in some cases, hardware), and I cannot recall a single time when the second month ever bore fruit for the game. Either it tanks straight out or it slowly, over a long period of time, becomes evergreen.
You think AW and Syndicate qualify for that?
Borderlands.
And you can reach a hell of a lot more than 40K people without having to appeal to kids or a mass market.
I have no idea how the business stucture of the works, but I have some ideas how it might work. The companies get to keep their IP's, but get top tier marketing from a big publisher (in theory of course). This actually has done for a long time in the industry. EA pays some aspect of the development (instead of all), markets it and if it fails they can cut it loose. If it's a succes, tighter contracts and get to keep it under their umbrella for a long time.The whole EA Parner's program is weird to me. So EA publishes the game, but doesn't own the rights to it. How does it help EA if it becomes successful? What stops a game from being made by a developer and published by EA, and then the dev getting a different publisher for a sequel, effectively getting EA to market a game that they may never see another dollar from?
I think the idea behind partners is good for developers, but it doesn't give enough of an incentive to the publishers.
As far as Overstrike, it'll likely do lackluster numbers. Insomniac aren't some amazing caliber developers, and most of their recent games have failed to sell more than average. Going multi-plat and losing the special-ness you get from being exclusive on one platform, and developing a game that no one is even talking about isn't gonna help them. Is EA going to give up stage time to Insomniac at E3 in order for them to push Overstrike, like Sony did for the Resistance series? I just don't see anything other than a 'meh' game with 'meh' sales when I see that game. I think the worst thing Insomniac did was to leave the guaranteed money of working with SCE. The videogame business is filled with developers who go under after a game doesn't sell and they lose support. Even after all of their spectacular failures with SCE, they were still pumping out games. Not sure EA is gonna be in the business for that.
Look. This excuse gets trotted out everything single month for dozens upon dozens of games (and in some cases, hardware), and I cannot recall a single time when the second month ever bore fruit for the game. Either it tanks straight out or it slowly, over a long period of time, becomes evergreen.
You think AW and Syndicate qualify for that?
The whole EA Parner's program is weird to me. So EA publishes the game, but doesn't own the rights to it. How does it help EA if it becomes successful? What stops a game from being made by a developer and published by EA, and then the dev getting a different publisher for a sequel, effectively getting EA to market a game that they may never see another dollar from?
The whole EA Parner's program is weird to me. So EA publishes the game, but doesn't own the rights to it.
Glad to see Syndicate bombing... Companies need to quit using the term "re-imagine" to cover turning a franchise into a generic shooter...
I totally agree.
If she is a talking about "sold to consumers" then I can belive her.You sure about that?
So far we know it is still a EA IP.Syndicate case is even weirder as it's EA's IP (or did they sold it to Starbreeze?)
Nintendo has a new console coming out and they don't want sales to drop significantly yoy.
If she is a talking about "sold to consumers" then I can belive her.
Syndicate case is even weirder as it's EA's IP (or did they sold it to Starbreeze?)
You sure about that?
Yes.
FFXIII is massively overshipped. It has sold less to consumers in Japan and the US, with Europe ending at about the same as XII.
Again, for that to be true, there would need to be 1M units on shelves. It would be very surprising for that to happen particularly when 700K of those units shipped after the game's release date.
Do you have actual numbers to back up your assertion?
Again, for that to be true, there would need to be 1M units on shelves. It would be very surprising for that to happen particularly when 700K of those units shipped after the game's release date.
Do you have actual numbers to back up your assertion?
USA 100k less
Japan 400k less
European sales of XIII would have to be really outstanding.